You and Rum do not appear to understand the difference. This is your way of running away from an argument.
Amazing isn’t it Bill? All these dozens and dozens of people you’ve interacted with over the years and you’re the only one who understand science and how to make a logical argument.
Oh wait…
1 Like
The empirical evidence indicates the opposite, Bill. That includes things like catalytic antibodies, protein engineering like ours, and even nature’s exploration of functional space as we’ve studied in inherited cardiomyopathies, which have very low penetrance.
That enormous mountain of evidence is ignored by the ID touts.
I concede I don’t understand how the conclusion you keep declaring follows from the premises. I submit that no living person does, and you keep failing in your attempts to explain it.
Because it fails to rule out alternative scenarios. One of the premises is essentially a statement of ignorance. And nowhere in the argument is there a premise that deals with the process of evolution. There needs, at the very least, to be a premise that details what the limitations of evolution are. And you’re probably going to need a whole host of premises to establish a conclusion about the limitations of evolution. Only when you have done that, can you bring the conclusion of that argument in as a premise in an argument about PRPF8.
The thing about logical arguments is that the conclusion can’t introduce concepts not dealt with in the premises. Look at this classic example of a deductive argument:
P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
The elements of the conclusion [Socrates] and [Mortal] are both dealt with in separate premises. There is no new concept introduced in the conclusion.
We have evidence of limited functional space and an exceedingly large sequence space.
Correct.
We don’t know the exact ratio’s but there are very few possible ratios where evolution works and none are supported by the observations.
What are the “ratios” where evolution works? Why? This is one of the missing premises that you need to flesh out. You will probably need to make this into it’s own argument that we can analyze before you can put it in as a premise in your PRPF8 argument.
If you are claiming universal common descent through an evolutionary process what model would work?
Don’t run away from your argument now and throw the burden of proof on me. You are claiming to have reason to reject evolution. But you have yet to show that your stated reasons imply your conclusion.
How do you get 170 proteins to bind and work together with PRPF8 without a pre determined sequence?
Isn’t that really just an argument from ignorance?
Thanks Rum. I do understand your point. We need to understand the difference between conclusion based on empirical evidence and a logical argument.
Can you prove to me universal common descent is true? I think you agree the answer is no. Can you provide some evidence that it maybe true. The answer is yes. You can provide some homologs that exist in the eukaryotic cell that support this claim.
In the same way I cannot prove to you that the spliceosome did not evolve but I can provide evidence that the known evolutionary mechanisms were probably inadequate. The evidence is as follows.
-The large size of the sequence space of its largest protein PRPF8
-The evidence that the sequence is highly preserved and therefor functional space is limited
-The sequence requirement to get a proper fold of a protein that large
-The lack of a spliceosome outside eukaryotic cells
This evidence tells me that the sequence most likely needed to be known to build this structure. This is not a logical conclusion like your societies is a man example but it is a logical conclusion based on the empirical observations.
Yes in a way but it is also an argument based on the enormous amount of DNA that needs to be organized to build this structure.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise in that statement. That some proteins are highly conserved doesn’t tell you anything at all about the total number of possible proteins. Once again you’re butchering basic logic.
Of course being Bill you’ll ignore the actual evolutionary feedback process of how the DNA came to be organized and claim it had to fall together all at once. ZOMG IT’S TOO IMPROBABLE!!!
That’s gibberish.
What’s after “therefore” in no way follows from what precedes it.
More gibberish. Folds (n.) are structural classifications. Proteins fold (v.) spontaneously. They stick to themselves and each other.
1 Like
I am sorry John I think you are spewing nonsense. You are arguing just to argue.
It tells what sequences are tolerated in its function. There could be other sequences but this is what the evidence is showing.
That’s all it tells. It says nothing about how many other possible proteins there could be with a similar function.
Face it Bill, you screwed up basic logic once again.
So there are other proteins that can be a part of the U5 segment of the spliceosome? I don’t think similar will cut it in this case.
There don’t have to be 1 to 1 replacements. You have no idea how many other possible combinations of proteins will support biological life.
You screwed up the basic logic again Bill. Wear it.
So your supporting the theory of the speculative unknown. 
You’re the one who claimed definite knowledge the number of possible other life-supporting proteins was too small for evolution to find. Of course you were making it up again like you always do. But do try to make jokes to cover your ignorance, that’s always amusing.
After all this you have no clue what we have been discussing. I have never claimed definitive knowledge that is your straw-man.
You claimed such knowledge right here Bill
Amazing how you always develop amnesia and forget the dumb things you’ve claimed after the dumbness is pointed out.
Do you think that preserved sequences don’t show limited functional space. This is not rocket science Timmy.